User Profile: tmarends

tmarends

Member Since: September 03, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [4] February 26, 2015 at 12:26pm

    I don’t understand how the Spirit would be insulted by someone asking an honest question of someone more knowledgeable on the subject. Sounds like the same reasoning Muslims give when they go off when someone “insults” Mohammad… which is, of course, no reason at all.

  • [1] February 20, 2015 at 12:07am

    She wasn’t “targeted”… they were long time customers, who regularly bought flowers in her shop. They went to buy flowers in their regular flower shop for a special occasion and were turned away because of what the special occasion was.

  • [6] February 9, 2015 at 2:01pm

    I see Alabama is still following their long and proud tradition… seeing how they didn’t even bother to repeal their anti-miscegenation laws until 2000, when the US Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional in 1967.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-2] February 2, 2015 at 1:32pm

    They were willing to make the cake… just not include the wording. If the guy had actually quoted Scripture, I don’t think there would have been a problem… but he didn’t… even he admits that.

  • January 23, 2015 at 1:40pm

    So you’re saying the retailer — in this case a baker — has the right to know what the consumer is doing with the product they are purchasing? AND if the retailer does not agree with how the product is to be used, has the right to refuse to sell?

  • January 22, 2015 at 4:31pm

    Except for the fact that most wedding cakes do not have messages written on them. I’ve never been to a wedding where there was something written on the cake… most of them have floral or themed designs. But I’m sure there are people who do have things written on their wedding cakes.

  • January 22, 2015 at 4:26pm

    Here’s the difference between the 2 cases. This baker never refused to bake a cake. The baker did refuse to add offending images or wording to the cake in question, but DID offer the supplies so the buyer could add their own images and wording to the cake. In the other case, the baker refused to bake a cake because of where the cake was going to be displayed/used/eaten… this baker never did that. That’s a huge difference.

    Responses (1) +
  • [46] December 17, 2014 at 11:20am

    Oh please… I’m 6’6″… I have people all the time ask me to help them get things off top shelves… and not just at stores… sometimes at their own homes.

  • [-2] December 12, 2014 at 7:08pm

    Stock photos or not… PFOX put up two different photos of the same guy, then put words next to those photos to indicate that they are twins. It’s deceitful, and they have been caught attempting to deceive the public.

  • [22] December 12, 2014 at 3:19pm

    So a “christian” group uses false images to send message about their work…. isn’t that against one of the 10 commandments?? How can you trust anything they say if they so blatantly mislead people with false advertising?

    Responses (5) +
  • June 20, 2013 at 5:46pm

    These comments are interesting. I wonder how many people who are so against homosexuals are condemned by Christ’s own words by being remarried after a divorce for a reason other than death, abandonment, or infidelity?? (By the way, the person who abandons his/her spouse, or the one who was unfaithful, can not, Biblically, remarry.) Or how many have friends and/or family members in a sinful, according to the Bible, remarriage?? Do you also, with the same vim and vigor, also rebuke those sinful remarriages?? Both publicly and in their face?? Somehow I seriously doubt that you do.

    Responses (4) +
  • January 12, 2013 at 6:28pm

    Because of what? You’re quoting a verse that starts with “Because of this”… so I want to know because of what?? What happened PRIOR to those words that caused what happened AFTER?? Do you even know??

  • January 12, 2013 at 12:21pm

    The problem with you statement is that abomination and sin are not interchangeable terms. Abomination, as used in the Bible, is a cultural taboo. For example, according to the book of Exodus, it was an abomination to the Egyptians if they were to share a meal with the Hebrews. However, it was NOT an abomination to the Hebrews. Every place abomination appears in the Bible it is a cultural thing, not a sin.

  • January 12, 2013 at 12:18pm

    Alan Chambers, the CEO of Exodus Intl, said last year that 99% of homosexuals will not see a change in their orientation.

    In Romans 1, Paul writes about idol worshipers who engaged in same-gender sexual relations as part of the worship. This was common in both Greece and Rome in the worship to false idols… it was also common to the Egyptians and Canaanites during Moses’ time.

  • January 12, 2013 at 12:10pm

    What your Bible translates as “those who practice homosexuality” is in the original Greek “Arsenokoitai”. “Arsenokoitai” is only found 2 places in the Bible, and in both places is in a list, so there is no context as to what the word truly means. “Arsenokoitai” is made up of two parts: “arsen” means “man”; “koitai” means “beds.” Literally it could be translated as male beds, or man- bedders. This particular word is not used anywhere in Greek Literature until some 200 years after Paul when it apparently means “pederast”, a corrupter of boys, and again in the sixth century (another 400 years) when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives. These two interpretations of the word come from the context of which it is placed… something we cannot do in 1 Corinthians. If Paul had wanted to use homosexuals or homosexuality in these lists he would have used one of the common Greek words for male/male sexual behaviour, like “paiderasste.”

    When Martin Luther translated this verse into German (1500s) he used the second century definition, and used what we would call “pedophiles” today. Pedophiles are not necessarily homosexual. Recent studies show that the majority of pedophiles, some 90%, are heterosexual.

    Taking this history into account, there is no justification to translate “Arsenokoitai” as “homosexuals” or anything to do with homosexuality.

  • January 12, 2013 at 12:05pm

    Just where does God say it’s a sin? In the 10 commandments given to Moses? No… it’s not there. Oh, Leviticus… No, that was written for Hebrew priests, from the tribe of Levi, and not for the entire Hebrew population — which was given in Deuteronomy.

    So in the NT, we have Paul’s writings… nothing directly from God or Jesus. And in Romans 1 Paul writes about those nasty idol worshipers who engage in same-gender sexual relations… but then calls out the Jewish readers in chapter 2 with a rebuke for judging the Gentiles of Rome.

    Which leaves 1 Corinthians & 1 Timothy. However, the word Paul uses in these verses seems to come from the Greek translation of Leviticus — which was written for Hebrew priests from the tribe of Levi… So, where does that leave us? Not one place in the entire Bible where God calls it a sin. Hmmm

  • January 12, 2013 at 11:56am

    The problem in your verses start with “Wherefore”… which indicates that what follows is based on what proceeded. So, what proceeds these verses you quote?

    Romans 1: 21-23

    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

    22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

    23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

    So, the people being talked about in the verses you quote were worshiping idols to false gods. This is the CONTEXT of the entire passage.

  • January 12, 2013 at 11:50am

    So what happened prior to this that God allowed this to happen. The verse you quote starts with “Therefore”, which implies that what happened in previous verses led to the outcome in the following verses. So, what happened??

    Romans 1:21-23

    21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

    So, according to the Bible, they were worshiping idols — statues made to represent false gods. It’s amazing how the whole thing changes when you read the full context. Unless, of course, you mean to call every gay person on the planet an idolater…

  • January 12, 2013 at 11:34am

    Sounds like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time… so busy saying “at least I’m not a sinner like THAT person”… all the while ignoring their own sins.

    Christ gave us two commands: Love God with all your heart, soul, and mind
    & Love your neighbor as yourself.

    Many people who claim to “love” homosexuals, just not their “sin”, would be appalled if they were treated the way they themselves treat homosexuals out of “love”.

  • January 12, 2013 at 11:23am

    Abomination is a cultural taboo. Every place it is used in the Bible is cultural. For example: It was an abomination (cultural taboo) to the Egyptians if they were to share a meal with the Hebrews — this is in Exodus. Notice, it wasn’t an abomination for the Hebrews, just the Egyptians.

    When people spout out “abomination” like it’s the worst sin ever, just shows their ignorance of the Bible.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love